Bibliographic record
Abstract
2024 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration on Judaism and Human Rights, issued by a distinguished group of international jurists, rabbis, and scholars at the 1974 McGill International Colloquium on Judaism and Human Rights. This article traces the emergence of a specifically Jewish religious human rights tradition to that moment of political crisis in the globalized Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Out of Montreal came three different meta-narratives about the relationship between Judaism and human rights each of which reflects a deep entanglement with questions of Zionism: a progressive humanism that stresses the unavoidable question of how Jewish rights and Palestinian rightlessness intersect; a revisionist conservatism that equates Jewish human rights with Zionist power; and a liberal antipolitics that seeks to partition Jewish human rights thought and activism from Zionism, freeing Jews from direct implication in the human rights crisis engulfing Israel and Palestine. Each of these meta-narratives is reflected in three different interpretations of the famous biblical verse that is a mainstay of contemporary Jewish human rights discourse: “Justice, justice, you shall pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut. 16:20 [JPS]). The article closes by offering a fourth, alternative reading of the verse as a way to imagine a possible future for Jewish human rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".